Idiot liar... You have gone on and on about how EXPENSIVE this war has been, now you sit there with your head up your butt complaining that it is being fought, "on the cheap?"

More proof that lies and stupidity are all you got.

Parated2K

From the VERY outset I said we did not send nearly the troop levels needed to prevent what we see today. Had Bush followed the military planning and sent 500,000 troops the most likely outcome is that we would have been able to turn a STABLE situation over to the NEW Iraqi Government and been out of Iraq a long time ago. That would have SAVED LIVES, INJURIES and MONEY. You are the idiot-- READ what the commission said. Read what Baker, Powell et al told Bush. Bush did not listed to ANY of their advice and he is responsible for the mess, deaths, injuries and the excessive cost of this war. We were told BEFORE we invaded that the cost would most likely be 40-60 Billion WHAT A LIE!

Here some excerpts from my book about Iraq:


When the former Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki provided his assessment that it would take several hundred thousand boots on the ground to secure the peace in Iraq, the President and Secretary of Defense told us he was wrong. It was the President and Secretary of Defense that did not understand the nature of the problem. The lack of manpower has caused frustration from the Iraqis and has produced additional casualties to both the United States and its coalition partners. Because of the Bush policy toward the United Nations and countries that did not agree with our going to war, we were unable to obtain assistance from other nations to secure Iraq.


(17)




In December 2003, Jeffery Record a visiting professor at the Army War College published a highly critical paper concerning the lack of understanding by the Bush administration of the threat facing America. Professor Record made some very perceptive points in his article. First, President Bush has incorrectly lumped al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq into a “single undifferentiated terrorist threat.” According to Professor Record, this was a “strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action.” He went on to say, “The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT (global war on terrorism) but rather a detour from it.”

(20)


On February 10, 2006 the Washington Post carried the story of Paul R. Pillar, the retired CIA’s top counterterrorism analyst from 2000 to 2005 who coordinated the intelligence on Iraq from 15 agencies. Pillar said Bush misused the intelligence and “cherry-picked” the intelligence to justify his decision to invade Iraq. The Washington Post story said Pillar wrote in an upcoming article for the Journal of Foreign Affairs that “It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, which intelligence
was misused publicly to justify decisions already made…” These comments by Mr. Pillar are some of the most severe indictments of the way President Bush misused our intelligence to justify his invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Mr. Pillar said, “Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war”.

(24)




The most dangerous reality is that millions of Muslims believe the policies of the United States and other Western countries threaten their belief, their territory and their God. Michael Scheuer, in his book Imperial Hubris states that America is faced with what he calls a defensive jihad, which is triggered by our policy in the Middle East. He points out that for Muslims do not separate politics and religion from their lives. They are all intertwined. For a Muslim to not join to protect Islam means that they are disobeying God's law. According to Mr. Scheuer the relationship of the Muslims to their religious beliefs is something that the Western world does not fully comprehend. Millions of Muslims look at Osama bin Laden as the protector of the Muslim faith, their way of life, their God and is not a terrorist. In fact the way Mr. Scheuer describes the conflict is more than just terrorism, it is an international insurrection by Muslims against what they believe is an attack on them, their religion and their way of life. The former CIA agent claims that we are faced with international insurrection by millions and millions of Muslims and that they will not end their resistance until the United States and other Western countries stop interfering with what they believe and remove themselves and their influence from all Muslim countries.

(25)

Only fools like ColGene think you fight a war from Washington.

i don't think the col or anyone who was opposed to us invading iraq want to fight the war from washington. we never wanted to fight in iraq at all. and still don't.

Sean

Right ON!!!

This war was NOT justified because we were NOT in any danger from Saddam and Iraq in 2002. GWB ignored ALL the warnings about the likely outcome of America invading Iraq and those warnings have come TRUE! Now the options to fix what Bush broke are NOT GOOD. We have not achieved the objective of establishing a Stable democracy and have managed to create millions of additional Moslems that hate us enough to attack us again.

Bush came to office with NO Foreign policy or Military experience and the results SHOW in all aspects of both the Moslem World and in most another areas like the Americas, North Korea, and Cuba etc. BUSH IS A LOOSER!

Bush came to office with NO Foreign policy or Military experience

actually, i don't judge him on that. History has proven that direct experience and success don't always go hand in hand. so i can't make that kind of blanket judgement. fact is, that everyone around him, from dick cheney, to wolfowitz to rumsfeld et al...had a wealth of experience. and see where it got us?

my problem with bush and his foreign policy is his "faith based " decision making process. the whole "stick to your guns" and "say it over and over and it will become true, facts be damned" methodology is reckless and dangerous.

i believe these men would have invaded iraq even if 9/11 never happened. there is clear evidence that shows they were working on it from day 1 in their tenure and 9/11 gave them the excuse they had been waiting for since the early 90's when his father wisely avoided the "hornet's nest."

. BUSH IS A LOOSER

oh, just one note gene,,,,i hate to comment on spelling errors, esp when they are one time typos (which, lord knows, i make all the time)but it's spelled "loser" with 1 "o." the way you spell it always makes me want to ask, "looser than what?"

take care man,,,

just one question...does anyone else see that the way bush and his administration operate is more like tony robbin's "neuroassociative conditioning" than anything in the christian faith?

 

Bush came to office with NO Foreign policy or Military experience and the results SHOW in all aspects of both the Moslem World and in most another areas like the Americas, North Korea, and Cuba etc. BUSH IS A LOOSER!

What are you talking about?  Please explain how you are now blaming Cuba on Bush? 

 

This war was NOT justified because we were NOT in any danger from Saddam and Iraq in 2002.

But democrats told me Saddam was a threat, and that he had WMD's.  Were they lying col?

But democrats told me Saddam was a threat, and that he had WMD's.

23 democrats didn't say that in the senate. the democrats were divided in 2002. your statement is blatantly false and misleading.

the only party that was unanimous for the war were the republicans. the democrats were divided, the libertarians were against as were most other 3rd parties. the republicans were alone, unless ya want to include the neonazis who suported the war too.

What are you talking about? Please explain how you are now blaming Cuba on Bush?

i don't want to speak for the Col. but i think what he means is the opportunities we have had to get inclusive with cuba in recent years have been squandered by this administration in some folk's opinion.

i doubt he was talking about castro coming into power way back when.

as far as my opinion on that, i'll refrain as it is not germaine and a whole 'nother tangent...

what were we talkin bout? the Iraq War? or the alleged war on Christmas? which fraud was it? lol

 

23 democrats didn't say that in the senate. the democrats were divided in 2002. your statement is blatantly false and misleading.

No, it's not.  I can quote many democrats who declared Saddam was a threat, had WMD's, and should be removed. 

the only party that was unanimous for the war were the republicans. the democrats were divided, the libertarians were against as were most other 3rd parties. the republicans were alone, unless ya want to include the neonazis who suported the war too.

29 democrats voted to support the war and 21 didn't.  No matter what the divide, the democrats in general voted for the war. 

i doubt he was talking about castro coming into power way back when.

Well it wouldn't surprise me.  Col could find a way to blame the Civil War on Bush if you gave him enough time.

No, it's not. I can quote many democrats who declared Saddam was a threat, had WMD's, and should be removed.

1) there are many "threats" in the world.
2) many didn't believe he had WMD's in 2002. and whatever any individual believe 23 voted against the war.

29 democrats voted to support the war and 21 didn't. No matter what the divide, the democrats in general voted for the war.

it was 23...they were...
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)


and when almost 1/2 the senators voted against the war, there was no "general" voting one way by them. you are wrong there.

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

Sorry but you're wrong on at least this one.

miler...here's my source on the voting on hr 114, the joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq, sponsored by dennis hastert.WWW Link

it's the senate website, no spin, no bias.

and that was the best you could do? nitpick 1 voter? pUHLeaaaassse!!! run along now...

and when almost 1/2 the senators voted against the war, there was no "general" voting one way by them. you are wrong there.

Then by your own link you show this statement as a lie. There are 100 senators and of the 100, 77 of them voted "for" the war.

No, it's not. I can quote many democrats who declared Saddam was a threat, had WMD's, and should be removed. 1) there are many "threats" in the world. 2) many didn't believe he had WMD's in 2002. and whatever any individual believe 23 voted against the war.

Here's who said what, "when" it was said and from what party:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

IslandDog

Numerous CIA Section chiefs said there was Intelligence that refuted the Bush/Cheney claim that Saddam had a nuclear program or a Bio program. They also said that Bush Cherry Picked the Intelligence and that he only used that which supported his position. Gen. Zinni also said the Intelligence prior to our invasion did not support what Bush and Cheney were claiming about the danger to the U.S. from Saddam.

Thus, what Bush did is ignore ANYTHING that did not agree with what he wanted to do and he was warned that there was a very real danger of destabilizing Iraq and getting bogged down in Iraq if we invaded. Today Saudi Arabia has made it clear, that will support the Sunnis if after we leave the majority Shiites attempt to eliminate the Sunnis. That is the nightmare that Bush was warned about- This would mean that the Iraq War could trigger a regional conflict. We already see Iran moving closer to the new Iraqi Government and that will not sit well with Saudi Arabia or Jordan.

Cheney was informed of the Saudi position two weeks ago according to the NYT. The true nature of the mistake Bush made by invading Iraq is coming to light even though people like Baker and Powell tried to warn Bush who would not listen. What we are seeing is the reason why Bush 41 did not invade Iraq.

Numerous CIA Section chiefs said there was Intelligence that refuted the Bush/Cheney claim that Saddam had a nuclear program or a Bio program. They also said that Bush Cherry Picked the Intelligence and that he only used that which supported his position. Gen. Zinni also said the Intelligence prior to our invasion did not support what Bush and Cheney were claiming about the danger to the U.S. from Saddam.

And how many of them were selling a book?  You cherry pick the people who support your claims, but ignore the ones who refute them that we constantly post to you.  I have already showed you how Zinni is associated with far left organizations, but you always seem to ignore that fact.

 

 

your point is moot,,,grandstand statements aren't what sends boys to war. congressional votes do. and again, 23 voted against. 7 of your quotes were from 1998, not 2002 and 8 were from people NOT in the senate. and if that's all ya got...lol

again, point being, 23 senators voted against the war.

your point is moot,,,grandstand statements aren't what sends boys to war. congressional votes do. and again, 23 voted against. 7 of your quotes were from 1998, not 2002 and 8 were from people NOT in the senate. and if that's all ya got...lol again, point being, 23 senators voted against the war.

Your "still" missing the my entire point, or you're deliberately ignoring it. Yes 23 voted against it. 23 out of "how" many? 23 out of a hundred isn't half of the senate. It's not even one quarter of it! It's not 1/2 of the democrats either!

and when almost 1/2 the senators voted against the war, there was no "general" voting one way by them. you are wrong there.

The issue that needs to be addresses is what Intelligence that refuted the Bush/Cheney claims in late 2002 were KNOWN by Congress BEFORE the voted to give Bush the authority to Invade IRAQ?

The other issue is was Congress told of the warnings by people like Baker, Powell and Armitrage that said invading Iraq could destabilize Iraq and cause the sectarian violence we see today. We know Bush was warmed but the question is were those same warnings conveyed to Congress BEFORE the voted?

There is no question that the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake that could cause a much wider conflict in the future. Bush screwed the pooch because he did not listen to people with far more knowledge and experience then he and Cheney had in the Moslem World!

As to the books Former CIA Section chiefs wrote—they conveyed what happened in their books and were the people that KNEW what the Intelligence said. They have ALL said the very same thing—Bush only used that which supported what he wanted to do and IGNORED everything else. Time has proven that what Bush Ignored was correct and what he choose to use was incorrect!

As to the books Former CIA Section chiefs wrote—they conveyed what happened in their books and were the people that KNEW what the Intelligence said. They have ALL said the very same thing—Bush only used that which supported what he wanted to do and IGNORED everything else. Time has proven that what Bush Ignored was correct and what he choose to use was incorrect!

They were selling books col, that was their motive.  The investigations that have been done showed that Bush and Cheney did not influence, or intentionally lie about intelligence that was given.   We have posted that so many times to you but you keep ignoring it like everything else that doesn't bash Bush.

IslandDog

You have proven NOTHOING of the sort. If you are saying these former CIA Officials and 4 Star General were not telling the truth and Bush was you are in dream world. The facts prove that what the CIA chiefs and Gen. Zinni have said is the truth and EVERYTHING Bush and Cheney said was WRONG! I guess Baker, Powell and Armitage are also not telling the truth about warning Bush of the danger that invading Iraq would produce! Add all the sources Bob Woodward quotes in his latest book and to assert that what Bush told us was true is a JOKE! He and Cheney lied over and over again.

The facts prove that what the CIA chiefs and Gen. Zinni have said is the truth and EVERYTHING Bush and Cheney said was WRONG! I guess Baker, Powell and Armitage are also not telling the truth about warning Bush of the danger that invading Iraq would produce! Add all the sources Bob Woodward quotes in his latest book and to assert that what Bush told us was true is a JOKE! He and Cheney lied over and over again.

Col you haven't provided proof.  A book by a journalist is not proof.  This is a simple concept you fail to grasp.  There is not any proof Bush intentially lied or misled.  This is fact col, get over it.

Col you haven't provided proof. A book by a journalist is not proof. This is a simple concept you fail to grasp. There is not any proof Bush intentially lied or misled. This is fact col, get over it.

no, a book is not proof. but it can be evidence , which in conjunction with other evidence does amount to proof. and over the last few years, the evidence pile is growing like a snowball goin down a mountain. poo-poo it all ya want, i could care less. but sooner or later, most of the time, the truth does come out...and i'm confident that eventually it will here too. whatever that truth may be.